Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India [Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary]

In the Supreme Court case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 against the Union of India and others. The bench comprised Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra. The case, decided on 7th March 2011, was a landmark in criminal original jurisdiction.

Aruna Shanbaug, a petitioner, sought relief related to euthanasia and the right to die with dignity. The court’s decision, which differentiated between active and passive euthanasia, established guidelines for the latter in exceptional circumstances. This case played a pivotal role in shaping the legal discourse on end-of-life decisions in India.

Facts of Aruna Shanbaug Case

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug used to work as a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. On November 27, 1973, she was attacked by a hospital cleaner who choked and strangled her with a dog chain to prevent her from resisting a rape attempt. When the attacker realised that Aruna was menstruating, he sexually assaulted her.

The next day, on November 28, 1973, Aruna was found unconscious on the floor with blood all around her. A cleaner discovered her in this state. The strangulation had cut off oxygen to her brain, causing severe damage to the cortex and a contusion in the brain stem, along with an injury to the cervical cord.

In 2009, after 36 years since the incident, a friend of Aruna filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. For all these years, Aruna had been in a ‘Permanent Vegetative State,’ unable to move her limbs and reliant on mashed food. She was completely dependent on KEM Hospital in Mumbai for her care.

Court-Appointed Doctors’ Findings:

In response to the petition, KEM Hospital and Bombay Municipal Corporation filed a counter-petition, leading to disagreements between the two parties. To better understand the situation, the Supreme Court appointed a team of three experienced doctors to investigate and provide a report on Aruna Shanbaug’s mental and physical condition.

The doctors studied her complete medical history and concluded that her brain was not dead. She exhibited a unique way of understanding and reacting to situations. Additionally, her body language did not suggest any desire to end her life. The nursing staff also showed diligence in taking care of her. As a result, the court believed that euthanasia was not necessary in this case.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India are:

• Should the withdrawal of life-sustaining systems and means for a person who is in a vegetative state (PVS) should be permissible?
• Does a person’s family or next friend have the authority/ right to seek the withholding or removal of life-supporting measures if the individual has not made such a request already?
• Whether Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug be declared dead?
• Should the Right to Die  fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Whether sections 306 and 309 of IPC be constitutionally valid?
• Should euthanasia be permitted and what legal issues revolve around it?

Petitioner’s Argument

A journalist and activist, Ms. Pinki Virani, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in  Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, asserting that the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses the Right to Die with dignity. She argued that individuals facing terminal illnesses or permanent vegetative conditions should have the right to end their lives with dignity, alleviating prolonged suffering.

Ms. Virani contended in  Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India that Aruna, the victim, lacked consciousness, was unable to chew her food and had been bedridden for 36 years with no hope of improvement. According to the petitioner, withholding food would not be killing Aruna but helping her die peacefully.

Respondent’s Arguments

The hospital dean opposed euthanasia in  Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, stating that the hospital staff had been caring for Aruna’s basic needs for nearly 36 years and would continue to do so willingly. The respondent emphasised Aruna’s age (60) and suggested that she would naturally pass away in the future, making euthanasia unnecessary.

The hospital staff had developed a close emotional bond with Aruna, with one member willing to care for her without pay. They argued against legalising passive euthanasia, claiming it could be abused by family members, undermining societal kindness and love.

The respondent contended in  Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India that every individual in the country has the Right to Life under Article 21 and euthanasia, by definition, involves taking the life of a living being, making it immoral and inhuman. Additionally, they raised the issue of consent, questioning who would provide consent on behalf of Aruna, given her inability to express consent for withdrawal from life support.

Judgment in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India

The court in  Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India made a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves the deliberate and positive termination of life through the administration of lethal substances, generally considered a worldwide crime unless permitted by law. In India, active euthanasia is a direct violation of section 302(2) and section 304(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, physician-assisted suicide is an offense under section 309(4) of the IPC. On the other hand, passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of life-support systems or medical treatment. The key difference lies in the fact that “active” involves a deliberate action to end life, while “passive” involves the omission of an action.

The apex court in  Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of Indialaid down specific procedures and guidelines for granting passive euthanasia in the “rarest of rare circumstances,” rejecting the petitioner’s plea. It clarified that decisions regarding the withdrawal of life support could be made by the High Court under Article 226.

When an application is received, the Chief Justice of the High Court must constitute a bench before which a committee of three reputable doctors should be referred. A thorough examination of the patient should take place and the state and family members must be given notice issued by the bench. The High Court is required to make a speedy decision.

Critical Analysis

In the landmark Gian Kaur case, the Supreme Court had previously rejected the recognition of the right to die within the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This recent judgment marks a historical shift by legalizing passive euthanasia in India, aiming to end the suffering of patients enduring unbearable and prolonged pain. It acknowledges that, despite advancements in technology, it is crucial to understand that humans should govern and sustain technology, not the other way around. The judgment emphasises that every citizen is entitled to and has the right to die with dignity.

Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary

In the Aruna Shanbaug case, a landmark in Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court distinguished between active and passive euthanasia. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, had been in a permanent vegetative state for 36 years.

The court permitted passive euthanasia in “rarest of rare circumstances.” It outlined a procedure, allowing the High Court under Article 226 to decide on life support withdrawal. The Chief Justice forms a bench, referring the case to a committee of three doctors. Family and state receive notice and a prompt decision is required.

This judgment marked a shift, legalising passive euthanasia in India, addressing prolonged patient suffering.